Over in Mike's post, we're beating up on a kid for not having a solid command of the basics of the science fiction genre. On account of we're curmudgeons, and on account of not knowing the basics of a genre makes you ill-suited to comment on the genre.
What are the foundational stories of the superhero genre, which the superhero reader should have read, or should at least be familiar with, in order to be firmly grounded in the superhero genre?
Let me put a little curve on that: Batman's origin has been retold a lot. Is it necessary to be familiar with a particular version, or is it sufficient to merely know the basics? If you've read the origin recap in a random mid-70s Detective Comics, but haven't read Batman: Year One or Batman #1, are you sufficiently well-informed to be able to comment intelligently on the character?
Is it enough to know Superman's origin, powers, and default situation, or do you need to have read Superman from the 30s to the 70s or The Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told? Do you need to be able to identify and differentiate Shuster, Boring, Swan, and Byrne Superman figures?
Does a Who's Who or OHMU entry substitute for reading the original?
Posted by Greg at March 26, 2007 4:26 PM
I suppose the counter-question is: why do you need to know a particular version? To put it another way, are you saying that you need to be intimately familiar with a character's history, publication or fictional, to be able to comment intelligently on a story involving that character?
I think it also depends on how you define "firmly". Do you have to have read every single issue of JLA from year dot (I haven't) or every Golden Age JSA story (I have), or the Lee-Kirby run on Fantastic Four (ditto).
It sounds like I'm dodging the question, and maybe I am. But as it's phrased now, I'm leaning towards "Depends" (not the diaper). It really depends on what the purpose of all this is for.
Intelligent commentary is not necessarily dependent on sufficient information.
Interesting commentary based on partial information IS dependent on sufficient intelligence.
So yes, a very smart person could make some inciseful worthwhile comments based on any of your examples of minimal information. And yes, on the other side of things, devotees like you curmudgeons can put too much value on expansive knowledge, to the detriment of valuable commentary. Mostly, though, it's to the detriment of some mouthy fanboy or pedant who lacks the expertise to match his arrogance. I ain't complaining.
I think it depends on the scope of discussion taking place. If someone says, "I think the way Wolverine is written in this story is stupid because XYZ," I don't think it's important that they've read the Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four. XYZ may or may not be valid.
Someone who's read more material might read or hear our hypothetical Wolverine fan's argument and say, "Well, Wolverine was written that way because of a previous story that established ABC." ABC might or might not change the original commenter's opinion; ABC may or may not invalidate previous argument XYZ. This sort of argument is based on continuity, personal opinion and taste, and to a far lesser extent genre familiarity/expertise.
OTOH, if the argument is that our hypothetical Wolverine story is that it's bad because it somehow violates or poorly plays against Wolverine's now long-established genre niche, then I think we're talking about a more scholarly sort of discussion where greater genre familiarity/expertise is a primary asset. Even then, the amount of material you "need" to know depends on the topic being discussed. For instance, continuing the Wolverine example, I think someone could participate meaningfully in that conversation even if they hadn't read a single comic book published before 1975.
None of which answers Greg's question. :-)
I guess if I were putting together a "highly recommended superhero genre reading list" for someone who wanted to be "well-versed" in the history and development of the genre (paging Dr. Singer; Dr. Singer to the floor, please), I would say:
Cripes, I could go on all day, and I've deliberately cut myself off at the mid-80's, but there's stuff after that I would include as well, of course. But if you've read all of the stuff listed above, you'd have a very nice foundation in mainstream superhero comics, I think.
We're in the internet age. You can do enough research in 5 minutes to reasonably understand the basics of any character. Of course you can only get dry summary that way and not the flavor or context. However, because superheroes are such a big part of pop culture, I'd have to say you don't to have read any comics at all to "get it."
Sure, some discussions of the medium require in depth knowledge and background but most of the time basic knowledge is enough to make a reasonable point. Of course, if you only want opinions from "experts" and are going to beat down anyone who isn't, you are going to have a much reduced post count.
I think there's two levels here. One is the knowledge required to be an expert of the genre. That requires a lot of specific information. Another is familiarity with the genre which requires a lot less information.
My knowledge of superhero comics comes almost entirely from Marvel comics 1983-1994, Frank Miller's work on Batman, some Alan Moore TPB classics, reading of classic Marvel Silver Age reprint material, Shooter era Valiant, and sporadic reading of comics (Marvel and DC) 1994-present. I am definitely not an expert, yet I can talk about superheroes competently.
I have a buddy whose experience is similar except that it's grounded in DC lore instead of Marvel. While we occassionally mention something the other does not know, we understand each other very well despite our lack of mutual details and to most people we both *appear* to be experts.
Considering my gaping lack of direct experience with most DC material why should I be able to talk intelligently with a DC afficianado?
The reason is that I know most of the pertinent mythos of the characters. And it is the mythos that is the true canon and what people discuss. Most issues, despite continuity, do not matter. The mythos is what provides the narrative of the character and what makes him understandable.
If you have a familiarity of the Lee/Ditko era, a few Lee/Romita issues with Mary Jane, the deaths of Gwen Stacy & the Green Goblin, who the Black Cat is, the Hobgoblin saga and other Roger Stern issues, the alien costume & Venom, and the clone stories (unfortunately), you know Spider-Man and can be considered fairly knowledgable - although not an expert to true experts. You could cut the above by 2/3 and still seem like an expert to non-readers familiar with the character as a cultural icon.
You can make an intelligent comment with very little knowledge. If you're really making an intelligent comment, you'll be wise enough to recognize you might have more to learn.